DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Choice with Fuzzy Preferences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Choice with Fuzzy Preferences SOCIAL CHOICE WITH FUZZY PREFERENCES RICHARD BARRETT AND MAURICE SALLES 1. introduction The most important concept of social choice theory is probably the concept of prefer- ence, be it individual preference or social preference. Typically, preferences are crisp, i.e., given by a binary relation over the set of options (social states, candidates, etc.). Then, for two options, either one is preferred to the other, or there is an indifference between them or there is no relation between them. In most cases, the possibility that there is no relation between them is excluded. The binary relation is then complete. Several au- thors, including Sen (1992), have considered that incompleteness was a way to deal with ambiguity. However, when the options are uncertain we must adopt preferences related in some way to probabilities and when they are complex, for instance when each option has manifold characteristics, we must try to take account of the vagueness this entails. To deal with vagueness, various authors have had recourse to, roughly speaking, three different techniques. The first is probability theory. Fishburn (1998) writes: ‘Vague preferences and wavering judgments about better, best, or merely satisfactory alternatives lead naturally to theories based on probabilistic preference and probabilistic choice.’ The second is fuzzy set theory. Each of these two theories has champions that apparently strongly disagree. There are, however, several signs indicating that the scientific war should eventually end (see Ross, Booker and Parkinson (2002) and the forewords in this book by Zadeh and by Suppes). The third is due to philosophers. Vagueness is an important topic within analytic philosophy (Keefe and Smith (1996), Burns (1991), Williamson (1994), Keefe (2000)). Philosophers have mainly been concerned with predicates such as tall, small, red, bald, heap, and solutions to the sorites paradox. (For instance, a nice example for the predicate ‘small’ is Wang’s paradox discussed by Dummett (1975). Consider the inductive argument: 0 is small; If n is small, n + 1 is small: Therefore every number is small.) Although there is little agreement among them about the nature of vagueness, a theory has been designed to deal with it: supervaluation theory. In an interesting paper, Broome (1997) has jointly considered vagueness and incompleteness. As social choice theorists, we are perhaps more interested in vagueness of relations than the kind of predicates mentioned above and most of the papers dealing with vagueness in choice theory have used fuzzy sets. The purpose of this chapter is to present some of the main results obtained on the aggregation of fuzzy preferences. Regarding the possible interpretations of preferences, it seems to us that we must confine ourselves to what Sen (1983, 2002) calls the outcome evaluation. Preference is about the fact that an option is judged to be a better state of affairs than another option. In Sen’s typology, the two other interpretations are about choices, normative or descriptive. In particular, our analysis is not well adapted to voting, since the voters’ ballot papers are not vague and the results of the election are not vague either, even if, before designing a crisp preference, each voter had rather fuzzy preferences. Date: August 10, 2004. We are most grateful to Prasanta Pattanaik for our joint work on this topic over the years. Thanks also to a referee for useful suggestions and to Dinko Dimitrov for his careful reading and for providing corrections. 1 2 RICHARD BARRETT AND MAURICE SALLES After introducing the concepts of fuzzy preference in Section 2, Section 3 will be de- voted to Arrovian aggregation problems and Section 4 to other aspects, including a fuzzy treatment of Sen’s impossibility of a Paretian liberal and the first results about fuzzy aggregation in economic environments. 2. fuzzy preferences In (naive) set theory, given a set X, a subset A and an element x ∈ X, either x ∈ A or x∈ / A. Belonging to the subset can be defined by a function b from X to {0, 1}, where x ∈ A is equivalent to b(x) = 1 and x∈ / A is equivalent to b(x) = 0. If the subset A refers to the description of some semantic concepts (events or phenomena or statements), there might be no clear-cut way to assert that an element is or is not in this subset. Classical examples are the set of tall men, the set of intelligent women or the set of beautiful spiders. The basic idea of replacing {0, 1} by [0, 1] as the set where the membership function takes its values is due to Zadeh. However, the origin of this is probably older, taking us back at least toLukasiewicz who introduced many-valued logic in 1920. For excellent mathemati- cal introductions, we recommend Dubois and Prade (1980) and Nguyen and Walker (2000). For a fuzzy binary relation, the membership function associates a number in [0, 1] to an ordered pair of options (x, y). The interpretation of a number α ∈ [0, 1] associated to (x, y) can be the degree of intensity with which x is preferred to y is α or the degree of truth that x is preferred to y is α. Though in some cases the first interpretation is possible and amounts to considering strength of preference, the second interpretation is always possible and is compulsory if, at some stage, fuzzy connectives (and, or ...) have been introduced. The fact that some positive value α is associated to (x, y) does not entail, in general, that the value 0 must be assigned to (y, x). For instance, if we consider two versions of Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge, say, by the Juilliard Quartet and the Berg Quartet, we may have mixed and conflicting feelings. We may prefer to some extent the Berg version because of its energy but have also some preference for the Juilliard because of its poetry. This will entail that some value α ∈]0, 1] be given to the preference for the Berg version over the Juilliard, but also that some value β ∈]0, 1] be given to the preference for the Juilliard version over the Berg. Moreover, on the basis of this example, it might seem strange to describe fuzziness by assigning a precise number. The logician Alasdair Urquhart (2001) has rightly observed : One immediate objection that presents itself to this line of approach is the extremely artificial nature of the attaching of precise numerical values to sentences like ‘73 is a large number’ or ‘Picasso’s Guernica is beautiful’. In fact, it seems plausible to say that the nature of vague pred- icates precludes attaching precise numerical values just as much as it precludes attaching precise classical truth values. One way to avoid this difficulty is to replace [0, 1] ordered by ≥ by some set of qual- itative elements ordered by a complete preorder. For instance, to give some intuition in the context of preference, the elements could be interpreted as being ‘not at all’, ‘insignif- icantly’, ‘a little’, ‘mildly’, ‘much’, ‘very much’, ‘definitely’, etc. We will consider both cases in the following subsections. 2.1. Fuzzy preferences: numerical values. We will stick in this chapter to the notions and properties used in the fuzzy aggregation literature. There are many notions about transitivity and choice which will not be introduced (see, for instance, Barrett, Pattanaik and Salles (1990), Basu, Deb and Pattanaik (1992), Dasgupta and Deb ((1991), (1996), (2001)), Salles (1998)). SOCIAL CHOICE WITH FUZZY PREFERENCES 3 Let X be the set of alternatives with #X ≥ 3. We will consider two types of fuzzy binary relations. Strict binary relations as described here were introduced in Barrett, Pattanaik and Salles (1986), hereafter denoted by BPS, and weak binary relations were introduced by Dutta (1987). Definition 1. A fuzzy binary relation over X is a function h : X × X → [0, 1]. Definition 2. A fuzzy binary relation p is a BPS-fuzzy strict preference if for all distinct x, y, z ∈ X, (i) p(x, x) = 0 (ii) p(x, y) = 1 ⇒ p(y, x) = 0 (iii) p(x, y) > 0 and p(y, z) > 0 ⇒ p(x, z) > 0. Definition 3. A BP S-fuzzy strict preference p is BPS-complete if for all distinct x, y ∈ X, p(x, y) > 0 or p(y, x) > 0. p(x, y) can be interpreted as the degree of intensity with which x is preferred to y (or, see above, the degree of truth that x is preferred to y). (i) expresses that we con- sider strict preferences. (ii) means that when strict preferences are definite (in some sense non-fuzzy), they are asymmetric. (iii) is a rather mild transitivity property. It is now well known that many transitivity concepts are available for fuzzy binary relations (Das- gupta and Deb, 1996). In particular, the most widely used concept, max-min transitivity, which states that given any x, y, z ∈ X, p(x, z) ≥ min(p(x, y), p(y, z)) is stronger than (iii). Subramanian (1987) uses two different fuzzy strict preferences one of which is a variant of BP S-fuzzy strict preferences. S1 Definition 4. A fuzzy strict preference p is a S1-fuzzy strict preference if it is a BP S-fuzzy strict preference for which for all distinct x, y, z ∈ X, pS1 (x, y) = pS1 (y, x) = pS1 (y, z) = pS1 (z, y) = 0 ⇒ pS1 (x, z) = pS1 (z, x) = 0. S2 A fuzzy strict preference p is a S2-fuzzy strict preference if it satisfies properties (i) and (ii) of Definition 2, and if S2 S2 S2 S2 for all distinct x1, x2, ..., xk ∈ X, p (x1, x2) > p (x2, x1) and p (x2, x3) > p (x3, x2) S2 S2 S2 S2 and ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Market Design in the Presence of Repugnancy: a Market for Children
    Shane Olaleye Market Design in the Presence of Repugnancy: A Market for Children Shane Olaleye Abstract A market-like mechanism for the allocation of children in both the primary market (market for babies) and the secondary market (adoption market) will result in greater social welfare, and hence be more efficient, than the current allocation methods used in practice, even in the face of repugnancy. Since a market for children falls under the realm of repugnant transactions, it is necessary to design a market with enough safeguards to bypass repugnancy while avoiding the excessive regulations that unnecessarily distort the supply and demand pressures of a competitive market. The goal of designing a market for children herein is two-fold: 1) By creating a feasible market for children, a set of generalizable rules and principles can be realized for designing functioning and efficient markets in the face of repugnancy and 2) The presence of a potential, credible and efficient market in the presence of this repugnancy will stimulate debate into the need for such markets in other similar areas, especially in cases creating a tradable market for organs for transplantation, wherein the absence of the transaction is often a death sentence for those who wish to, but are prevented from, participating in the market. Introduction What is a Repugnant Transaction? Why Care About It? Classical economics posits that when the marginal benefit of an action outweighs its marginal cost, a market mechanism can be implemented wherein an appropriate price emerges that balances the marginal benefit and marginal cost of the action through a suitable transaction between counterparties.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Computational Social Choice
    1 Introduction to Computational Social Choice Felix Brandta, Vincent Conitzerb, Ulle Endrissc, J´er^omeLangd, and Ariel D. Procacciae 1.1 Computational Social Choice at a Glance Social choice theory is the field of scientific inquiry that studies the aggregation of individual preferences towards a collective choice. For example, social choice theorists|who hail from a range of different disciplines, including mathematics, economics, and political science|are interested in the design and theoretical evalu- ation of voting rules. Questions of social choice have stimulated intellectual thought for centuries. Over time the topic has fascinated many a great mind, from the Mar- quis de Condorcet and Pierre-Simon de Laplace, through Charles Dodgson (better known as Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland), to Nobel Laureates such as Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen, and Lloyd Shapley. Computational social choice (COMSOC), by comparison, is a very young field that formed only in the early 2000s. There were, however, a few precursors. For instance, David Gale and Lloyd Shapley's algorithm for finding stable matchings between two groups of people with preferences over each other, dating back to 1962, truly had a computational flavor. And in the late 1980s, a series of papers by John Bartholdi, Craig Tovey, and Michael Trick showed that, on the one hand, computational complexity, as studied in theoretical computer science, can serve as a barrier against strategic manipulation in elections, but on the other hand, it can also prevent the efficient use of some voting rules altogether. Around the same time, a research group around Bernard Monjardet and Olivier Hudry also started to study the computational complexity of preference aggregation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Choice Theory Christian List
    1 Social Choice Theory Christian List Social choice theory is the study of collective decision procedures. It is not a single theory, but a cluster of models and results concerning the aggregation of individual inputs (e.g., votes, preferences, judgments, welfare) into collective outputs (e.g., collective decisions, preferences, judgments, welfare). Central questions are: How can a group of individuals choose a winning outcome (e.g., policy, electoral candidate) from a given set of options? What are the properties of different voting systems? When is a voting system democratic? How can a collective (e.g., electorate, legislature, collegial court, expert panel, or committee) arrive at coherent collective preferences or judgments on some issues, on the basis of its members’ individual preferences or judgments? How can we rank different social alternatives in an order of social welfare? Social choice theorists study these questions not just by looking at examples, but by developing general models and proving theorems. Pioneered in the 18th century by Nicolas de Condorcet and Jean-Charles de Borda and in the 19th century by Charles Dodgson (also known as Lewis Carroll), social choice theory took off in the 20th century with the works of Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen, and Duncan Black. Its influence extends across economics, political science, philosophy, mathematics, and recently computer science and biology. Apart from contributing to our understanding of collective decision procedures, social choice theory has applications in the areas of institutional design, welfare economics, and social epistemology. 1. History of social choice theory 1.1 Condorcet The two scholars most often associated with the development of social choice theory are the Frenchman Nicolas de Condorcet (1743-1794) and the American Kenneth Arrow (born 1921).
    [Show full text]
  • Political Correctness and Freedom of Expression
    POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS IN POLITICS of RHODES UNIVERSITY Supervisor: Dr Antony Fluxman By: Geoffrey Embling January 2017 Abstract A brief history of political correctness is discussed along with various definitions of it, ranging from political correctness being a benign attempt to prevent offense and avert discrimination to stronger views equating it with Communist censorship or branding it as "cultural Marxism". The aim of the research is to discover what political correctness is, how it relates to freedom of expression and what wider implications and effects it has on society. The moral foundations of rights and free speech in particular are introduced in order to set a framework to determine what authority people and governments have to censor others' expression. Different philosophical views on the limits of free speech are discussed, and arguments for and against hate speech are analysed and related to political correctness. The thesis looks at political correctness on university campuses, which involves speech codes, anti­ discrimination legislation and changing the Western canon to a more multicultural syllabus. The recent South African university protests involving issues such as white privilege, university fees and rape are discussed and related to political correctness. The thesis examines the role of political correctness in the censorship of humour, it discusses the historical role of satire in challenging dogmatism and it looks at the psychology behind intolerance. Political correctness appeals to tolerance, which is sometimes elevated at the expense of truth. Truth and tolerance are therefore weighed up, along with their altered definitions in today's relativistic society.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Choice (6.154.11)
    SOCIAL CHOICE (6.154.11) Norman Scho…eld Center in Political Economy Washington University in Saint Louis, MO 63130 USA Phone: 314 935 4774 Fax: 314 935 4156 E-mail: scho…[email protected] Key words: Impossibility Theorem, Cycles, Nakamura Theorem, Voting.. Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Rational Choice 1.2 The Theory of Social Choice 1.3 Restrictions on the Set of Alternatives 1.4 Structural Stability of the Core 2 Social Choice 2.1 Preference Relations 2.2 Social Preference Functions 2.3 Arrowian Impossibility Theorems 2.4 Power and Rationality 2.5 Choice Functions 3 Voting Rules 3.1 Simple Binary Preferences Functions 3.2 Acyclic Voting Rules on Restricted Sets of Alternatives 4 Conclusion Acknowledgement Glossary Bibliography 1 Summary Arrows Impossibility implies that any social choice procedure that is rational and satis…es the Pareto condition will exhibit a dictator, an individual able to control social decisions. If instead all that we require is the procedure gives rise to an equilibrium, core outcome, then this can be guaranteed by requiring a collegium, a group of individuals who together exercise a veto. On the other hand, any voting rule without a collegium is classi…ed by a number,v; called the Nakumura number. If the number of alternatives does not exceed v; then an equilibrium can always be guaranteed. In the case that the alternatives comprise a subset of Euclden spce, of dimension w; then an equilibrium can be guaranteed as long as w v 2: In general, however, majority rule has Nakumura number of 3, so an equilibrium can only be guaranteed in one dimension.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoliberal Reason and Its Forms: Depoliticization Through Economization∗
    Neoliberal reason and its forms: Depoliticization through economization∗ Yahya M. Madra Department of Economics Boğaziçi University Bebek, 34342, Istanbul, Turkey [email protected] Yahya M. Madra studied economics in Istanbul and Amherst, Massachusetts. He has taught at the universities of Massachusetts and Boğaziçi, and at Skidmore and Gettysburg Colleges. He currently conducts research in history of modern economics at Boğaziçi University with the support of TÜBITAK-BIDEB Scholarship. His work appeared in Journal of Economic Issues, Rethinking Marxism, The European Journal of History of Economic Thought, Psychoanalysis, Society, Culture and Subjectivity as well as edited volumes. His current research is on the role of subjectivity in political economy of capitalism and post-capitalism. and Fikret Adaman Department of Economics, Boğaziçi University Bebek, 34342, Istanbul, Turkey [email protected] Fikret Adaman studied economics in Istanbul and Manchester. He has been lecturing at Boğaziçi University on political economy, ecological economics and history of economics. His work appeared in Journal of Economic Issues, New Left Review, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Economy and Society, Ecological Economics, The European Journal of History of Economic Thought, Energy Policy and Review of Political Economy as well as edited volumes. His current research is on the political ecology of Turkey. DRAFT: Istanbul, October 3, 2012 ∗ Earlier versions of this paper have been presented in departmental and faculty seminars at Gettysburg College, Uludağ University, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul University, University of Athens, and New School University. The authors would like to thank the participants of those seminars as well as to Jack Amariglio, Michel Callon, Pat Devine, Harald Hagemann, Stavros Ioannides, Ayşe Mumcu, Ceren Özselçuk, Maliha Safri, Euclid Tsakalatos, Yannis Varoufakis, Charles Weise, and Ünal Zenginobuz for their thoughtful comments and suggestions on the various versions of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Like Cases Be Decided Alike? a Formal Analysis of Four Theories of Justice
    Should Like Cases be Decided Alike? A Formal Analysis of Four Theories of Justice Benjamin Johnson Richard Jordan Princeton University Baylor University Abstract The maxim ‘treat like cases alike’ has underpinned theories of justice since Aristotle. It is commonly wielded as a shield against arbitrary rule and as a sword for civil rights. But it is not clear what the maxim actually means. In this paper, we formalize and evaluate possible definitions of the maxim, including those of John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, HLA Hart, and Aristotle. We demonstrate that, as a theoretical principle, the maxim is always either unhelpful or pernicious. It provides no moral reason to make any particular decision. Importantly, we limit our inquiry to pure theory, and so there may still be room for using the maxim in practice. But such pragmatic use could only be justified with reference to other values, since the maxim contains no moral force of its own. Our findings should encourage political and legal theorists to reexamine some core assumptions of our normative theories. 9973 Words 1 [J]ustice demands, wherever that concept is found, that like men be treated alike in like conditions. Why, I do not know; the fact is given. – Karl Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush 1 Introduction About 2,400 years ago, Aristotle argued that like cases should be treated alike. This Like Cases Maxim (LCM) has been a core feature of political philosophy ever since. The maxim was at the heart of some of the most important theoretical disputes of the last several decades. For political theorists in the liberal tradition like John Rawls, a maxim rooted in shared, objective features could hold ground against utilitarian theories that rest on subjective individual preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Social Choice Or Collective Decision-Making: What Is Politics All About?
    1 Social Choice or Collective Decision-making: What Is Politics All About?1 (penultimate draft) Thomas Mulligan Georgetown University Abstract: Sometimes citizens disagree about political matters, but a decision must be made. We have two theoretical frameworks for resolving political disagreement. The first is the framework of social choice. In it, our goal is to treat parties to the dispute fairly, and there is no sense in which some are right and the others wrong. The second framework is that of collective decision- making. Here, we do believe that preferences are truth-apt, and our moral consideration is owed not to those who disagree, but to the community that stands to benefit or suffer from their decision. In this essay, I consider whether political disagreements are conflicts between incommensurable values or imperfections in our collective search for truth. I conclude two things. First, analysis of real-world disagreement suggests that collective decision-making is the right way to model politics. In most, possibly even all, political disagreements, all parties believe, if implicitly, that there is an objective standard of correctness. Second, this matter is connected to the concept of pluralism. If pluralism is true, then collective decision-making cannot be applied to some political disagreements. More surprisingly, pluralism may rule out the applicability of social choice theory, as well. Resolving disagreement is both a central challenge for our politics and one of its greatest gifts. It is rare that a policy commands anything like consensus; different special interest groups have different desires; and the elements of government compete among themselves for limited resources.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: a Review Christian List1
    1 Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: A Review Christian List1 This version: June 2017 Forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy 1. Introduction In normative political theory, it is widely accepted that democratic decision making cannot be reduced to voting alone, but that it requires reasoned and well-informed discussion by those involved in and/or subject to the decisions in question, under conditions of equality and respect. In short, democracy requires deliberation (e.g., Cohen 1989; Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Dryzek 2000; Fishkin 2009; Mansbridge et al. 2010). In formal political theory, by contrast, the study of democracy has focused less on deliberation, and more on the aggregation of individual preferences or opinions into collective decisions – social choices – typically through voting (e.g., Arrow 1951/1963; Riker 1982; Austen-Smith and Banks 2000, 2005; Mueller 2003). While the literature on deliberation has an optimistic flavour, the literature on social choice is more mixed. It is centred around several paradoxes and impossibility results showing that collective decision making cannot generally satisfy certain plausible desiderata. Any democratic aggregation rule that we use in practice seems, at best, a compromise. Initially, the two literatures were largely disconnected from each other. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a growing dialogue between them (e.g., Miller 1992; Knight and Johnson 1994; van Mill 1996; Dryzek and List 2003; Landa and Meirowitz 2009). This chapter reviews the connections between the two. Deliberative democratic theory is relevant to social choice theory in that deliberation can complement aggregation and open up an escape route from some of its negative results.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenneth Arrow's Contributions to Social
    Kenneth Arrow’s Contributions to Social Choice Theory Eric Maskin Harvard University and Higher School of Economics Kenneth Arrow created the modern field of social choice theory, the study of how society should make collection decisions on the basis of individuals’ preferences. There had been scattered contributions to this field before Arrow, going back (at least) to Jean-Charles Borda (1781) and the Marquis de Condorcet (1785). But earlier writers all focused on elections and voting, more specifically on the properties of particular voting rules (I am ignoring here the large literature on utilitarianism – following Jeremy Bentham 1789 – which I touch on below). Arrow’s approach, by contrast, encompassed not only all possible voting rules (with some qualifications, discussed below) but also the issue of aggregating individuals’ preferences or welfares, more generally. Arrow’s first social choice paper was “A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare” (Arrow 1950), which he then expanded into the celebrated monograph Social Choice and Individual Values (Arrow 1951). In his formulation, there is a society consisting of n individuals, indexed in1,..., , and a set of social alternatives A (the different possible options from which society must choose). The interpretation of this set-up depends on the context. For example, imagine a town that is considering whether or not to build a bridge across the local river. Here, “society” comprises the citizens of the town, and A consists of two options: “build the bridge” or “don’t build it.” In the case of pure distribution, where there is, say, a jug of milk and a plate of cookies to be divided among a group of children, the children are the society and A 1 includes the different ways the milk and cookies could be allocated to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Paradoxes Situations That Seems to Defy Intuition
    Paradoxes Situations that seems to defy intuition PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 07:26:17 UTC Contents Articles Introduction 1 Paradox 1 List of paradoxes 4 Paradoxical laughter 16 Decision theory 17 Abilene paradox 17 Chainstore paradox 19 Exchange paradox 22 Kavka's toxin puzzle 34 Necktie paradox 36 Economy 38 Allais paradox 38 Arrow's impossibility theorem 41 Bertrand paradox 52 Demographic-economic paradox 53 Dollar auction 56 Downs–Thomson paradox 57 Easterlin paradox 58 Ellsberg paradox 59 Green paradox 62 Icarus paradox 65 Jevons paradox 65 Leontief paradox 70 Lucas paradox 71 Metzler paradox 72 Paradox of thrift 73 Paradox of value 77 Productivity paradox 80 St. Petersburg paradox 85 Logic 92 All horses are the same color 92 Barbershop paradox 93 Carroll's paradox 96 Crocodile Dilemma 97 Drinker paradox 98 Infinite regress 101 Lottery paradox 102 Paradoxes of material implication 104 Raven paradox 107 Unexpected hanging paradox 119 What the Tortoise Said to Achilles 123 Mathematics 127 Accuracy paradox 127 Apportionment paradox 129 Banach–Tarski paradox 131 Berkson's paradox 139 Bertrand's box paradox 141 Bertrand paradox 146 Birthday problem 149 Borel–Kolmogorov paradox 163 Boy or Girl paradox 166 Burali-Forti paradox 172 Cantor's paradox 173 Coastline paradox 174 Cramer's paradox 178 Elevator paradox 179 False positive paradox 181 Gabriel's Horn 184 Galileo's paradox 187 Gambler's fallacy 188 Gödel's incompleteness theorems
    [Show full text]
  • Computer-Aided Methods for Social Choice Theory
    CHAPTER 13 Computer-aided Methods for Social Choice Theory Christian Geist and Dominik Peters 13.1 Introduction The Four Color Theorem is a famous early example of a mathematical result that was proven with the help of computers. Recent advances in artificial intelligence, particularly in constraint solving, promise the possibility of significantly extending the range of theorems that could be provable with the help of computers. Examples of results of this type are a special case of the Erdos˝ Discrepancy Conjecture (Konev and Lisitsa, 2014), and a solution to the Boolean Pythagorean Triples Problem (Heule et al., 2016). The proofs obtained in these two cases are only available in a computer-checkable format, and have sizes of 13 GB and 200 TB, respectively. Proofs like these do not have any hope of being human-checkable, and make the controversy about the proof of the Four Color Theorem pale in comparison. The computer-found proofs of results we discuss in this chapter, on the other hand, will have the striking property of being translatable to a human-readable version. Social choice theory studies group decision making, where the preferences of several agents need to be aggregated into one joint decision. This field of study has three characteristics that suggest applying computer-aided reasoning to it: it uses the axiomatic method, it is concerned with combinatorial structures, and its main concepts can be defined based on rather elementary mathematical notions. Thus, Nipkow (2009) notes that “social choice theory turns out to be perfectly suitable for mechanical theorem proving.” In this chapter, we will present a set of tools and methods first employed in papers by Tang and Lin (2009) and Geist and Endriss (2011) that, thanks to the aforementioned properties, will allow us to use computers to prove one of social choice theory’s most celebrated type of result: impossibility theorems.
    [Show full text]